Respect his rational view of it all. I agree 100%; mostly it is probably just deficiency in Google/Youtube's mechanism. There may be a few zealot employees at Google who use their positions to take pot-shots at some Youtubers with whom they disagree.

As a programmer, it shocks me that this system is so backwards.﻿

_________________Nero: So what is your challenge?

Anthro: Answer question #2: How do "Climate Change models" mathematically control for the natural forces which caused the Ice Age(s) to come and go . . . repeatedly?

Respect his rational view of it all. I agree 100%; mostly it is probably just deficiency in Google/Youtube's mechanism. There may be a few zealot employees at Google who use their positions to take pot-shots at some Youtubers with whom they disagree.

As a programmer, it shocks me that this system is so backwards.﻿

Actually, if it were a program solely flagging these automatically, I'd expect different results.

The YouTube content creators have been getting their years worth of videos mass-demonitized all at once. Not a red flag by itself, but various users have been getting hit with such an event at vastly different times. It's been going on for months.

One user getting most of their content flagged all at once. Then another user getting it 6 weeks later.

The time span between these events indicates that there is a human decision being made, specifically targeting the user being flagged. Not the keywords being searched for in a software program. Otherwise they would've all been hit at pretty much that same time, not over a period of months.

Respect his rational view of it all. I agree 100%; mostly it is probably just deficiency in Google/Youtube's mechanism. There may be a few zealot employees at Google who use their positions to take pot-shots at some Youtubers with whom they disagree.

As a programmer, it shocks me that this system is so backwards.﻿

Actually, if it were a program solely flagging these automatically, I'd expect different results.

The YouTube content creators have been getting their years worth of videos mass-demonitized all at once. Not a red flag by itself, but various users have been getting hit with such an event at vastly different times. It's been going on for months.

One user getting most of their content flagged all at once. Then another user getting it 6 weeks later.

The time span between these events indicates that there is a human decision being made, specifically targeting the user being flagged. Not the keywords being searched for in a software program. Otherwise they would've all been hit at pretty much that same time, not over a period of months.

Well, what I mean is this:

"Conservative" green backs are just as lucrative as "SJW" green backs. Any firm that is too stupid to realize that is destined to eventual demise. Certainly, some products and services are inappropriate to be targeted at certain demographics: no point trying to sell "gay" stuff to hetero people for example, or "gun stuff" to rabid gun grabber types.

So, if in fact, Google is allowing (or directing) employees to engage in a slow-phased "attack" on anti-SJW content creators, that right there is remarkably stupid for the simple reason that, they are leaving money on the table by failing to match up those content creators with the advertising sponsors whose products/services fit their channels.

"Data mining" is supposed to be about exactly this sort of stuff: figuring out who someone is based on all the information you can get by virtue of them logging in to your site. Targeted marketing is supposed to be about using this information to connect these users to your products and services (or to the appropriate type of advertising sponsor from your pool).

But apparently Google, one of the most "all-knowing," all-seeing, internet-master-race firms in existence cannot even manage to create some programs which take information about content providers and match them up to appropriate ad sponsors??

It would appear that Google is leaving buttloads of money on the proverbial systray.

_________________Nero: So what is your challenge?

Anthro: Answer question #2: How do "Climate Change models" mathematically control for the natural forces which caused the Ice Age(s) to come and go . . . repeatedly?

I think that Google (as well as many techie companies) are well known to lean left on the political spectrum. These techie companies (Amazon, Google, and others) don't always care about the money (at least from a bottom line-profit standpoint). They have been running their businesses at an overall loss for years. If I am not mistaken, they actually focus on increasing revenues over bottom line profit. They increase their revenue stream and that boosts (sometimes more like inflate) their stock prices. The stock prices of techies have been overinflated for years.

_________________The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.- misattributed to Alexis De Tocqueville

No representations made as to the accuracy of info in posted news articles or links

I think that Google (as well as many techie companies) are well known to lean left on the political spectrum. These techie companies (Amazon, Google, and others) don't always care about the money (at least from a bottom line-profit standpoint). They have been running their businesses at an overall loss for years. If I am not mistaken, they actually focus on increasing revenues over bottom line profit. They increase their revenue stream and that boosts (sometimes more like inflate) their stock prices. The stock prices of techies have been overinflated for years.

If that is true, then they will fail.

Amazon will eat their lunch.

_________________Nero: So what is your challenge?

Anthro: Answer question #2: How do "Climate Change models" mathematically control for the natural forces which caused the Ice Age(s) to come and go . . . repeatedly?

Well . . . YT is under no obligation to insure the income of anyone. They provide a free service, and have been "generous(?)" enough to also facilitate monetization. As far as I'm aware, they can give the content creators whatever cut of their ad sponsor revenue they want, all the way down to zero dollars and there is no legal basis for anyone to make a claim against YT. Nothing about their terms of service is a contract of employment much less a commitment to provide revenue to content creators.

Not saying that to "defend" YT, just pointing out it is the fact.

Obviously, YT is beholden to content creators as a whole: if not for the content creators, YT would be even less of profitable venture than it already is. It might well yield zero revenue, or at least the advertising revenue might dwindle to zero. But they are now edging in paid YT content so they are at minimum diversifying their revenue streams and at worst, slowly turning up the water to boil the frogs and kill the "free" viewing content while they replace that viewership with paid viewership.

Anyone who has made >$1 of profit from YT should consider themselves lucky and if they are continuing to operate as content creators--especially if that is their sole source of subsistence--then they should also operate under the assumption that eventually the gravy train is going to run dry and they will no longer be able to make sufficient profit from YT, if any at all.

It is a completely novel business model . . . well, maybe not completely novel. Fairs and other entertainment and mercantile gatherings which benefited from the use of central and/or safe/protected locations (e.g., castle courtyards or central areas of walled cities throughout much of the pre-industrial era) and where the sovereign/landowners take was in the form of tolls or entry fees to consumers, not registration fees for performers merchants . . . that sort of thing is the same model in general. But clearly the facts of computers, video technology, and the internet have created something that takes those sorts of themes to new dimensions never before seen.

_________________Nero: So what is your challenge?

Anthro: Answer question #2: How do "Climate Change models" mathematically control for the natural forces which caused the Ice Age(s) to come and go . . . repeatedly?

Well . . . YT is under no obligation to insure the income of anyone. They provide a free service, and have been "generous(?)" enough to also facilitate monetization. As far as I'm aware, they can give the content creators whatever cut of their ad sponsor revenue they want, all the way down to zero dollars and there is no legal basis for anyone to make a claim against YT. Nothing about their terms of service is a contract of employment much less a commitment to provide revenue to content creators.

Understood. You Tube is a business and can set its own business model/rules.You Tube (presumably since I am not a content creator and have never examined the process for becoming a content creator) does have rules (and by implication expectations) around its content provider program. Which then raises the question "Is You Tube acting within those program rules with regards to its content providers?"

Anthropoid wrote:

Obviously, YT is beholden to content creators as a whole: if not for the content creators, YT would be even less of profitable venture than it already is. It might well yield zero revenue, or at least the advertising revenue might dwindle to zero. But they are now edging in paid YT content so they are at minimum diversifying their revenue streams and at worst, slowly turning up the water to boil the frogs and kill the "free" viewing content while they replace that viewership with paid viewership.

You Tube needs content creators.The more content they have, the more content they have that can be viewed. The more content that is viewed, the more advertising opportunities they have. The more advertising they sell, the more revenue they generate.

Where they err (perhaps not within the law but perhaps within their own business model/policies and practices) is in how they treat their content providers. Some are held to one standard, and some to another. You Tube is obviously creating dissatisfaction within its content contributor community.

The more that they do it, the longer that they do it, the more incentive is created for someone to create/promote/use a competing format.That is where You Tube may harm itself in the future.

_________________The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.- misattributed to Alexis De Tocqueville

No representations made as to the accuracy of info in posted news articles or links

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum